WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

@McGentrix,

Quote:

In NYS these guns fire the same bullet at the same rate. Yet one is illegal and the other is legal.

So you feel that a reasonably competent person would be able to fire 100 rounds with reasonable accuracy from each weapon in the same time frame?

1 Reply

@parados,

They are both semi-auto guns, one trigger pull and one bullet fires. The only difference is one of them has optics and the other has iron sites. The rate of fire would be the same.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Really? You think they would both be able to fire 100 rounds in the exact same time with the same accuracy? Look at them again

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

In some states.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Really? You think they would both be able to fire 100 rounds in the exact same time with the same accuracy? Look at them again

Yes. I've watched it done.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

So you are arguing that the changing out of magazines takes no time? I always find these argument rather silly on your part.

Since you are arguing they are the same in every way, then you should have no problem with only one of them being legal. After all, it's the same.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So you are arguing that the changing out of magazines takes no time? I always find these argument rather silly on your part.

What am I arguing? That changing magazines... WTF are you even talking about?

parados wrote:

Since you are arguing they are the same in every way, then you should have no problem with only one of them being legal. After all, it's the same.

I am arguing that since they are the same in ways that matter, not every way, neither should be illegal.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

got clocked by a steer hoof while I was driving it out to pasture. I was standing on a gate rung (the cattle gates are steel pipe size cattle gates. These were for buffalo I think). The steers came busting out and I didnt get my foor outta the way fast enough so he stepped onmy left instep and cracked a bone. It hurt like hell till they set it and now Im in dream lnd with some reaally great pqin pills. Its a synthetic morphine.
My typos are all over the mp but hey, Im high as a kite.

Ouch. I hope you heal well.

And make sure you don't get addicted to those painkillers.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

But what if the numbers change. What if in the next 5 years it grows by an order of magnitude a year. Would that change your calculus any or is it completely inflexible?

This isn't really about this data being collected, I don't expect any big surprises from some more data on that level, I just wonder if dramatically different consequences to the liberty would change your calculus or if this is a liberty you would accept any cost for.

I'm not sure. My tolerance for mayhem would be fairly high probably. But probably not infinite.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

As for the second amendment, in my opinion, it is too ambiguous to be discussed without controversy as to what it actually means, in particular the term "well regulated."

The meaning is entirely clear. The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always organize the people into a militia. The second half of the Second Amendment prevents the government from interfering with the people being armed.

revelette2 wrote:

I am going into fields beyond me, but, from what I read on a google search the term means (in the days it was written) "something in proper working order."

Not bad. The term was used to refer to militia units that had trained to the degree that they fought as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

If you are mentally disabled, you couldn't really be able shoot in proper working order which the terms "well regulated" means.

Dyslexia is a mental disability. I don't think "not being a good speller" will prevent someone from firing a gun accurately.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

the source of much of the debate re: the second amendment IS on the term "Well regulated" since its implications are wide

I'm not aware of any significant debate (or wide implications) regarding the term.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So you are arguing that the changing out of magazines takes no time? I always find these argument rather silly on your part.

Each gun should change magazines at the same pace. With identical magazines there should be no difference.

But yes, changing magazines doesn't take much time at all.

parados wrote:

Since you are arguing they are the same in every way, then you should have no problem with only one of them being legal. After all, it's the same.

Just the opposite. If there is no valid reason for restricting a type of gun, then it is blatantly unconstitutional to do so.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Thanks for the link, Revel. I was vaguely wondering what I would face in a few years. Not much, apparently.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

revelette2 wrote:
As for the second amendment, in my opinion, it is too ambiguous to be discussed without controversy as to what it actually means, in particular the term "well regulated."

The meaning is entirely clear. The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always organize the people into a militia. The second half of the Second Amendment prevents the government from interfering with the people being armed.

Hmmm... At the time it was written, It was the threat of tyrannical governments that the writers were most concerned about. They were British citizens who had just rebelled against their own government. So it would not make sense that a government could be expected to train the people who intended to overthrow it.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

You stated they could both fire 100 rounds in the same amount of time... That requires changing out magazines. Do you not know anything about guns?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

But they don't have identical magazines. Nor can they be held in the same fashion while changing magazines. You seem to want to argue that facts in evidence to everyone else don't exist for you.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You stated they could both fire 100 rounds in the same amount of time... That requires changing out magazines. Do you not know anything about guns?

Yes, they have identical lowers that take the same magazine and have the same magazine release and yes, the magazine can be changed out the same speed on either rifle.

What does that have to do with anything I stated though?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

The pictures that compared the 2 guns show they don't have the same magazine. The one that is called illegal has a larger magazine. Think about it for a moment and it will become clear to you.

Now..... which one will fire 100 rounds faster?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Hmmm... At the time it was written, It was the threat of tyrannical governments that the writers were most concerned about. They were British citizens who had just rebelled against their own government. So it would not make sense that a government could be expected to train the people who intended to overthrow it.

The militia was not intended to overthrow the federal government. It was intended to fight for the federal government.

The Framers felt that a federal government that relied on a militia to enforce the law would never become tyrannical, whereas a federal government that used a standing army to enforce the law would naturally evolve into tyranny.

1 Reply

WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know